The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-03-26
S. Fillmore Bennett, III. D.

have been much interested in the article
entitled Contradictions in the Bible,"
written for The UNIvERsALIsT of March 5,
by Rev. j. B. SAKE; but am impressed with
the thought that Mr.. SAKE brings up very
little argument to shake the faith, Cor want
of faith), of one honestly believing the Bible
contrsdi dictory in its statements, end. also
honestly seeking The truth.
If one Of the evangelists says that "Judas
hanged himself, and came to his death in
that way" and another says thst he "fell
down, burst asunder and his bowels gushed
out, and he died in that way" as DR.. Lyman
Beecher's "skeptic" claimed, would the
quibble of DR.. Beecher, "Oh, suppose the
rope broke" !" satisfy any honestly doubling
mind? Nay. Such contradictions must
be met with some more reasonable answer.
Would Mr.. SAKE dispose of it in such cavi-
lier manner? Indeed, how will he dispose of
it2
If the Bible is inspired, it is inspired all
through. 1t is fatal to its authority as the
Word of God, if it does contain plain contra
dictiops of statement. Nay, if it have one
whole. Such contradictions" as above
cited, must be explained by something more
than bubble and every honest skeptic will
feel like calling on Mr.. SAKE for his explana-
ton.
Again: Is it not fact that the days" of
creation, in the original language of the
Scripture, mean the same periods of twenty
fonr h,,u,.s xutiob NOM
l once asked divine, learned il the original
tongue, this same question, and his answer
was in the affirmative. "By no latitude of
Interpretation" said he, "can they be taken to
mean anything else; and 1 am forced to the
conclusion that the writer intended that they
should be understood that way, and no other.
The Interpretation of indefinite and immense
periods of time for these days was
necessity which modern science has forced
upon u.s." 1t is some years ago since this
answer was given me, and may not quote it
verbatim, but it impressed me so deeply at
the time that cannot misquote the speakers
meaning. If the statement is true, what
right have we to assume that the writer meant
anything else, or intended we should under
pendous work of creation was performed in
six days of twenty-four hours each2 Will
Mr.. SAKE answer?
Mr.. SAKE says: "In fact, considering when
and how the Bible was written, and all the
circumstances concerning it, the wonderful
harmony and consistency in all its parts, and
absence of contradictions, either of known
r.. ,F (.
marvels of the world, and the strongest proof
that it was inspired. The Koran was writ
ten by one man-and yet so contradictory
was it with itself, that its author
had repeatedly to expurgate it, or expressly
assume what he had previously written, in
subsequent alleged revelation"
Now. if the Bible is inspired, should the
fact make any difference that it "was written
by many hands, in various parts of the world
and during long succession of ages?"
Could not, and would not God, infallible and
unchangeable, 'inspire" many men, and in
successive ages, Just as correctly as one man
in one age?
Should we not look for book ''inspired
by God" to be perfect, no matter how many
persons were the writers?
As to expurgations and alterations, is not
the Bible as open to the suspicion of such
handling as the Koran or any other book?
Skeptics say that the Nicean Council did
tamper with the text for the very purpose of
avoiding contradictions, as well as to make
it agree in doctrine with the prior teachings
of the Romish church. Is that claim true?
If true, does 1t not rob the Bible of its sanetity
as an inspired book, and degrade it to the
level of other books written by uninspired
men? Or were the men composing the
Council of Nice inspired, so they might
without sin alter an inspired book, and even